I thought i did knew my Linux, Slackware is running like a charm, but i have some troubles with this one.
Hope i'll get all the answers on this forum because on linuxiso.org there really isn't a big Arch support.
what i hate in apt is that everything is modular
this is *VERY* annoying
Actually, I think rc.M is easier to edit than the Arch rc. scripts, but aside from that--you will find it far smaller and, I believe, somewhat faster (subjective, no benchmarks)
The package management--I don't know how well Fedora has done with RPMS, but package management is a pleasure. Most similar, in my opinion, to Debian.
Compared to something like Fedora, I think you'll find it more to your taste (judging from the fact you were using Slack).
The install is a lot quicker--just choose base and then add packages from there.
If you were really into Fedora, I'd say, maybe not, but as you said that you very much liked Slack, I think you'll be pleased.
]]>However, it has many worthwhile benefits such as current software, i686 optimized binary packages, and a roll-your-own system (abs) for customizing your software if you don't like the default compiles.
If you decide to give it try, post back here with your impressions.
Cheers,
farphel
What i want in a distro is to fully customize the install. I want control over my system. Furthermore speed is important. Also a good package managment. There are numorous more things that are important ofcourse and what i've read so far i'll give this one a go. :mrgreen:
This is exactly what Arch will give you. So go for it.
]]>you could possibly dual boot if you like i know lots of people that run one distro as their main distro on one partition or drive while testing various other distros on another partition/drive.
The problem is i don't have enough HD space for a dual boot system. I need linux for my daily work so that's why i make a big deal out of this
in the end i doubt there is anything i can say that would absolutely convince you that you want to run arch or not. i don't know you or your needs desires.
What i want in a distro is to fully customize the install. I want control over my system. Furthermore speed is important. Also a good package managment. There are numorous more things that are important ofcourse and what i've read so far i'll give this one a go. :mrgreen:
]]>Later,
Isamoor
]]>I really liked Slackware: good performance, simple, stable, etc. But guess what, I found out Arch was even more simple and faster.
]]>Furthermore, does it makes a difference if i wait until the 0.6 release, or can i just download the 0.5 release and upgrade using pacman. Does the kernel upgrade to 2.6 and KDE upgrade to 3.2 work flawlesly?
If you do a base install of 0.5 and do a proper system upgrade (ie.read the forums and make sure you're aware of how to do this, and the issues) then you have 0.6.
Kernel upgrades and KDE are very easy with pacman - again, there are a few issues with KDE particularly (I think) so check the forums and read what people are doing...
The only way you'll know if you like it is to try...
you could possibly dual boot if you like i know lots of people that run one distro as their main distro on one partition or drive while testing various other distros on another partition/drive.
in the end i doubt there is anything i can say that would absolutely convince you that you want to run arch or not. i don't know you or your needs desires.
]]>As a former Slack user, I prefer the way Arch handles application installs and dependency checking. Which by the way are done through "pacman". Also Arch is more minimalistic then Slackware.
Those where the points wich really drawn my attention to this distro. I hate it when a distro comes loaded with packages you dont need! Also the minimalist part is the thing i like.
Furthermore, does it makes a difference if i wait until the 0.6 release, or can i just download the 0.5 release and upgrade using pacman. Does the kernel upgrade to 2.6 and KDE upgrade to 3.2 work flawlesly?
Thanx so far for the information
]]>As a former Slack user, I prefer the way Arch handles application installs and dependency checking. Which by the way are done through "pacman". Also Arch is more minimalistic then Slackware.
]]>Its up to you...what you want...Arch is a very good distro if you want to learn about linux & your system...
If you want to safe then just dual boot if you have the room....I cannot comment about slackware ...but coming from Mandrake to Arch was a journey of surprise & delight...
Mr Green
]]>